Reputation management or branding is increasingly important for public organizations. Based on organization theory perspectives and reputation management theory, reputation profiles of four agencies—from the financial and education sectors—are compared. The data used were retrieved from the websites of the agencies at two points in time (2006 and 2016). The main results show not only that the performance dimension of the reputation profile is the most prominent but also that it is more balanced with moral and professional dimensions over time. This shows the increasing multiplicity of reputation management, catering to many and diverse internal and external stakeholders.
BergerP. L.LuckmanT. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York, NY: Doubleday.
2.
BovensM. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13, 837-868.
3.
BrunssonN. (1989). The organization of hypocrisy: Talk, decisions, and actions in organizations. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
4.
BusuiocM.LodgeM. (2017). Reputation and accountability relationships: Managing accountability expectations through reputation. Public Administration Review, 77, 91-100.
5.
CarpenterD. (2010). Reputation and power: Organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation at the FDA. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6.
CarpenterD.KrauseG. A. (2012). Reputation and public administration. Public Administration Review, 72, 26-32.
7.
ChapleoC.DuranM. V. C.DiazA. C. (2011). Do UK universities communicate their brands effectively through their websites?Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 21, 25-46.
8.
ChristensenT. (2003). Narratives of Norwegian governance: Elaborating the strong state tradition. Public Administration, 81, 163-190.
9.
ChristensenT.GornitzkaÅ. (2017). Reputation management in complex environments—A comparative study of university organizations. Higher Education Policy, 30, 124-140.
10.
ChristensenT.LægreidP. (2007). Regulatory agencies—The challenges of balancing agency autonomy and political control. Governance, 20, 499-520.
11.
ChristensenT.LodgeM. (2016). Accountability, transparency and societal security. In ChristensenT.LægreidP. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook to accountability and welfare state reforms in Europe. London, England: Routledge. pp. 165-179
12.
CyertR. M.MarchJ. C. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
13.
DahlR. A.LindblomC. E. (1953). Politics, economics, and welfare. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
14.
EastonD. (1965). The political system: An inquiry into the state of political science. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
15.
EgebergM.TrondalJ. (2017). Researching European union agencies: What have we learnt (and where do we go from here)?Journal of Common Market Studies, 55, 675-690.
16.
FolmoJ. (2005). Konkurransetilsynet: En studie av endringsprosesser og reguleringsatferd [Norwegian competition authority: A study of change processes and regulatory practice] (Master thesis). Oslo: Department of Political Science, University of Oslo.
17.
FomnrunC. J.Van RielC. B. M. (2004). Fame & fortune: How succesful companies build winning reputations. Indianapolis: FT Press.
18.
GulickL. (1937). Notes on the theory on organizations: With special reference to government. In GulickL.UrwinL. (Eds.), Papers on the science of administration. New York, NY: A. M. Kelley.
19.
HeugensP.Van RielC.Van den BoschF. (2004). Reputation management capabilities as decision rules. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 1349-1377.
20.
HyttenG. (2009). Kreditttilsynet—en organisasjonsteoretisk analyse av utvikling og virkemåte [The credit supervisory authority—An organization theory analysis of development and practice] (Master thesis). Oslo: Department of Political Science, University of Oslo.
21.
IsaksenH. (2012). Finanstilsynet—utenfor og innenfor: en studie av Finanstilsynes arbeid med EU-regelverk [The financial supervisory authority of Norway—Outside and inside: The financial supervisory authority’s work with EU-directives] (Master thesis). Oslo: Department of Political Science, University of Oslo.
22.
KingdonJ. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
MaorM. (2011). Organizational reputations and the observability of public warnings in 10 pharmaceutical markets. Governance, 24(3), 557-582.
25.
MaorM. (2015). Theorizing bureaucratic reputation. In WæraasA.MaorM. (Eds.), Organizational reputation in the public sector. New York, NY: Routledge.
26.
MaorM. (2016). Missing areas in the bureaucratic reputation framework. Politics and Governance, 4, 80-90.
27.
MaorM.Sulitzeanu-KenanR. (2016). Responsive change: Agency output response to reputational threats. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26, 31-44.
28.
MarchJ. G. (1994). A primer in decision making: How decisions happen. New York, NY: Free Press.
29.
MarchJ. G.OlsenJ. P. (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
30.
MarchJ. G.OlsenJ. P. (1983). Organizing political life: What administrative reorganization tells us about government. American Political Science Review, 77, 281-297.
31.
MeyerJ. W.RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
32.
MeyerJ. W.DroriG. S.HwangH. (2006). World society and the proliferation of formal organization. In MeyerJ. W.DroriG. S.HwangH. (Eds.), Globalization and organization. World society and organizational change (pp.25-48). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
33.
MorphewC. C.HartleyM. (2006). Mission statements: A thematic analysis of rhetoric across institutional types. Journal of Higher Education, 77, 456-471.
34.
OphaugM. H. (2015). Organisatorisk utvikling i den statlige utdanningsadministrasjonen 1947-2014—Med hovedvekt på beslutningsprosessen i forkant av Utdanningsdirektoratets opprettelse i 2004 [Organizational development in the governmental education administration—Emphasizing the decision-making process leading up to the establishment of the Norwegian directorate for education and training] (Master thesis). Oslo: Department of Political Science, University of Oslo.
35.
PollittC. (2008). Time, policy, management: Governing with the past. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
36.
PollittC. (2011). Performance blight and the tyranny of light? Accountability in advanced performance measurement regimes. In DubnickM. J.FredericksonH. C. (Eds.), Accountable governance: Problems and promises (pp. 81-97). London, England: M. E. Sharpe.
37.
PollittC.BouckaertG. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
38.
PollittC.TalbotC.CaulfieldJ.SmullenA. (2004). Agencies: How governments do things through semi-autonomous organizations. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
39.
RøvikK. A. (2002). The secrets of the winners: Management ideas that flow. In Sahlin-AnderssonK.EngwallL. (Eds.), The expansion of management knowledge: Carriers, flows and sources (pp. 113-144). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
40.
Sahlin-AnderssonK. (2001). National, international and transnational construction of new public management. In ChristensenT.LægreidP. (Eds.), New public management: The transformation of ideas and practice pp. 43-72. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
41.
SchillemansT. (2008). Accountability in the shadow of hierarchy: The horizontal accountability of agencies. Public Organization Review, 8, 175-194.
42.
SelznickP. (1957). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
43.
SolstadS. G. (2009). Konkurransetilsynet—et sted mellom Norge og EU [The competition authority—A place between Norway and EU] (Master thesis). Oslo: Department of Political Science, University of Oslo.
44.
StensakerB.LangfeldtL.HarveyL.HuismanJ.WesterheijdenD. (2011). An in-depth study on the impact of external quality assurance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 465-478.
45.
ThompsonJ. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
46.
Van RielC. B. M.FombrunC. (2007). Essentials of corporate communications: Implementing practices for effective reputation management. London, England: Routledge.
47.
WæraasA. (2018). Putting on the velvet glove: The paradox of “soft” core values in “hard” organizations. Administration & Society, 50, 53-77. doi:10.1177/0095399715581471
48.
WæraasA.ByrkjeflotH. (2012). Public sector organizations and reputation management: Five problems. International Public Management Journal, 15, 186-206.
49.
WæraasA.MaorM. (2015). Understanding organizational reputation in a public sector context. In WæraasA.MaorM. (Eds.), Organizational reputation in the public sector (pp. 1-14). New York, NY: Routledge.
50.
WæraasA.SolbakkM. N. (2009). Defining essence of a university: Lessons from higher education branding. Higher Education, 57, 449-462.
51.
WeickK. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52.
WilsonJ. Q. (1990). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York, NY: Basic Books.
